Select to expand quotecammd said..FormulaNova said..cammd said..
Okay, first thing's first. You are calling things immoral, which essentially means going against the 'rights and wrongs' based on community judgements/consensus. For you to be correct in calling things "immoral" they need to be against the community beliefs.
Would you say slavery is innately immoral or just immoral now. Were those slave owners who did horrible things to their slaves acting morally given the community standards at the time.
I bet there were plenty of people at the time who thought whipping, beating and torturing and killing slaves was immoral. Not by your explanation of it though.
Was killing 6 million people in gas chambers immoral.... not in Nazi Germany by your explanation. Was forcibly removing indigenous people off their traditional lands immoral in 1800s Australia, not by your explanation.
I think your explanation is BS.
Community beliefs have been wrong in the past and there are some that are still wrong today, killing unborn babies is a modern example of an immoral practice.
So you agree that "moral" and "immoral" are based on community standards. Good. We agree on something.
You are talking to the wrong person if you are arguing that the killing of people in gas chambers was moral or immoral then because you are asking if the public at the time agreed with it. We don't know, because wrongly or rightly a lot of people got caught up in the movement and believed what they were told by those in charge and wanted someone to blame for their dire economy... caused by reparations from the first world war.
But, were most people there in agreement of killing other people? We will never know as to disagree with the sentiment of those around you may have made you a target also.
Clearly, we all should agree now that killing of Jews and other people at the time was wrong. No need to use the word 'moral' or 'immoral' because it makes no sense in that context.
Your mention of salvery and morality shows that you do understand the nuances of calling something moral or immoral.
But what you are ignoring is that no one in society is asked to choose between the life of a baby versus a teenager, and therefore there is no general consensus. So how can there be a judgement of moral or immoral if something does not have general community agreement?
Moral versus immoral is not the same as 'right' versus 'wrong'. Right and wrong can change also, and are a function of our beliefs at the time.
Killing of embyros that could otherwise become babies is only immoral if the majority of the community believe it to be so. Is this the case right now? If so, why are the politicians getting away with making something law that we as a majority disagree with?
To provide an answer to your question, there is no such thing as "innately immoral". It is just as nonsensical as saying scientifically religious.
So I guess we need a new word. That means "innately immoral" In the sense that cammd used it.
Right and wrong are relative, so no good to us here.
Something that is a sin against nature? is that getting close?
Depends on the definition of nature I guess.
There again is there any point, it's use will vary with the outlook of the user.
It all comes down to, "there are no absolutes" except 0 kelvin and the speed of light.
All else is relative.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova.
But what you are ignoring is that no one in society is asked to choose between the life of a baby versus a teenager,
.
Hmm, except perhaps the surgeon performing an emergency Ceaser.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..FormulaNova.
But what you are ignoring is that no one in society is asked to choose between the life of a baby versus a teenager,
.
Hmm, except perhaps the surgeon performing an emergency Ceaser.
Oh no! You have hit upon where the choice is actually made. Is an emergency caesarean done to primarily protect the mother's life, the baby's life, or it depends on the situation?
I would argue it is also generally accepted by the majority of the community (at least in Aus) that the mother's life is a higher priority than the baby's, although I suspect that the mother probably has some significant say in this decision.
I wonder where some people stand on this. Is the baby's right to life ignored if the mother is surely going to die in giving birth?
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
So I guess we need a new word. That means "innately immoral" In the sense that cammd used it.
Right and wrong are relative, so no good to us here.
Something that is a sin against nature? is that getting close?
Depends on the definition of nature I guess.
There again is there any point, it's use will vary with the outlook of the user.
It all comes down to, "there are no absolutes" except 0 kelvin and the speed of light.
All else is relative.
Yes, right and wrong are essentially the same as immoral and moral in some ways. Their use is a judgement. Whether it is using contemporary values to judge something done in the present or something done in the past.
Was it wrong to burn hydrocarbons for so many years? Maybe in 300 years someone will say it was, but at the time it accelerated development of civilizations... so was it wrong or right?
Is there any absolute that applies to choices? It's not immoral or wrong for a leopard to eat a deer. It's what they do.
Sin? Nature? What are they really, if not judgements? A sin seems to be something that someone has decided is "bad" for some reason. Nature seems to be a bit arbitary too. Surely humans are part of nature, we have done plenty of 'bad' things.
I find the mention of Nazi Germany to be an interesting point, because at the time most Germans were probably in favor of their government, as most people were under pressure from economic affects of reparations from the previous war. The same people were probably as a whole nice people. We cannot even pretend that 'we' as individuals would have been any better if placed in the same situation. If this was the case, we can't really call the situation then immoral, even if we can now.
Isn't the speed of light relative too? 
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said.. .. Sin? Nature? What are they really, if not judgements? A sin seems to be something that someone has decided is "bad" for some reason. Nature seems to be a bit arbitary too. Surely humans are part of nature, we have done plenty of 'bad' things.
Isn't the speed of light relative too?
I was trying to get "man" out of the picture, but that's almost impossible without going all religious, and we don't want that, do we?
Speed of light is considered absolute because it's impossible to go faster, (within our space time continuum anyway) but light itself can be slowed of course.
The only relative relationship of the speed of light, is that of other things are relative to it. Time for instance.
One of my customers just brought his new baby into work, she is only a few months old, still got the baby blue eye's checking everything out and grinning at everyone. How anyone can think they are not the most precious things in the world beats me, if they don't deserve our protection nothing does. IMO
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said.
Killing of embyros that could otherwise become babies is only immoral if the majority of the community believe it to be so. Is this the case right now? If so, why are the politicians getting away with making something law that we as a majority disagree with?
Why, because they break the law - not the law of the land but Gods law of morality.
Let's start with one.
Though shalt not kill
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..>> Though shalt not kill
Yes that's a ripper, and seems to be the most broken one of the lot. Most civilisations have been founded by breaking that law as hard and fast as they can.
They broke the law also on coercing the public to take experimental vaccines on condition of their employment despite the vast majority of the public being against it.
They got away with it without prosecution.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
They broke the law also on coercing the public to take experimental vaccines on condition of their employment despite the vast majority of the public being against it.
They got away with it without prosecution.
I think the parliamentary appeal for a Royal Commission hasn't been tabled yet. There's still time. I'd love to see heads rolling like the Wood Royal Commission.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
One of my customers just brought his new baby into work, she is only a few months old, still got the baby blue eye's checking everything out and grinning at everyone. How anyone can think they are not the most precious things in the world beats me, if they don't deserve our protection nothing does. IMO
I agree 100%. We have evolved to think they are the most precious thing. That smile is not just accidental, it's evolution figuring out what works with our brains to get us to look after this helpless thing.
At the same time, the mother gets dosed with a lot of hormones to make them suddenly think that this thing is worth protecting and feeding.
Even men are not immune to this and somehow get sucked into looking after babies. For some reason evolution thought it would be a successful way to keep the species going.
But Hitler was a baby once too ;-)
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Why, because they break the law - not the law of the land but Gods law of morality.
Let's start with one.
Though shalt not kill
God has gotten in on this now, with the discussion of what is moral and what is not? That's very generous of him.
Does he actually say what is moral, or just that as long as it fits into your definition of moral that its okay?
It's pretty good that no one person has killed in the name of God/a god.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
They broke the law also on coercing the public to take experimental vaccines on condition of their employment despite the vast majority of the public being against it.
They got away with it without prosecution.
Have these threads started bleeding together. I have lost track? Which CT is this one now?
Who is 'they'? Was the vast majority against it? I wasn't, and don't know that many people that were.
Is my majority different to yours?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Pcdefender said..
They broke the law also on coercing the public to take experimental vaccines on condition of their employment despite the vast majority of the public being against it.
They got away with it without prosecution.
Have these threads started bleeding together. I have lost track? Which CT is this one now?
Who is 'they'? Was the vast majority against it? I wasn't, and don't know that many people that were.
Is my majority different to yours?
I think PM33 believes the overlords broke the law. The overlords make the law, so it would make sense that they didn't get prosecuted.
I must have been around 10 years old when I discovered that life is unfair.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Was the vast majority against it? I wasn't, and don't know that many people that were.
Is my majority different to yours?
Most of the public in this country were against their tyrannical unlawful coercive measures.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Most of the public in this country were against their tyrannical unlawful coercive measures.
In Victoria, most people stood with Dan Andrews, they fully embraced the lockdowns and vaccines during the pandemic. He won his third term in 2022 by a landslide.
Your unsubstantiated assertion is complete rubbish.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Most of the public in this country were against their tyrannical unlawful coercive measures.
I must admit, I was a bit pissed off when 'they' gave us a limit on how many rolls of toilet paper per person. That really **** me.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Pcdefender said..
Most of the public in this country were against their tyrannical unlawful coercive measures.
In Victoria, most people stood with Dan Andrews, they fully embraced the lockdowns and vaccines during the pandemic. He won his third term in 2022 by a landslide.
Your unsubstantiated assertion is complete rubbish.
Oh no! Mark McGowan got in too, and most people LOVED living in WA during this time.
I am talking about the various coercive measures not if they wanted to take the vax or not.
Most of the people i talked to were against the coercion.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
I am talking about the various coercive measures not if they wanted to take the vax or not.
Most of the people i talked to were against the coercion.
You spoke to the majority of Australia during this time? That's the only way I can reconcile 'most of the people I talked to' with 'most of the public in this country'.
But then again, I am just as guilty of saying the majority agreed with me. How do I know? I could have just been sucked in by the media and the three people I spoke to over this time.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Pcdefender said..
Most of the public in this country were against their tyrannical unlawful coercive measures.
In Victoria, most people stood with Dan Andrews, they fully embraced the lockdowns and vaccines during the pandemic. He won his third term in 2022 by a landslide.
Your unsubstantiated assertion is complete rubbish.
Not quite how it happened.
Dan Andrews formed the 'sack dan Andrews' party and won the election on preference votes from that party.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
Not quite how it happened.
Dan Andrews formed the 'sack dan Andrews' party and won the election on preference votes from that party.
Rubbish!
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
I am talking about the various coercive measures not if they wanted to take the vax or not.
Most of the people i talked to were against the coercion.
Says a lot about the the people you talk to. I don't know anyone who is not vaccinated or upset about vaccination mandates.
I'd hope that most people in this country are against tyrannical, unlawful, coercive measures.
Whether the various vax mandates were tyrannical, unlawful or coercive is a more debatable point.
Select to expand quoteremery said...
Says a lot about the the people you talk to. I don't know anyone who not vaccinated or upset about vaccination mandates.
Bollocks.
The very person you are replying to got very upset about vaccination mandates. That is the point of the discussion you are currently engaged in with that person.
What you mean is that you ignore anyone who is not vaccinated or anyone who got upset about vaccination mandates and ... taa-dah...every one now magically has the same opinion as you.
If I ignore anyone who speaks Spanish, then I have never met anyone who speaks Spanish.
Ergo. Spanish is dead language and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
I am talking about the various coercive measures not if they wanted to take the vax or not.
Most of the people i talked to were against the coercion.
I can picture this.
Meet someone.
Say hello. Mention how the world is run by lizard people.
Watch the person's reaction of confusion. Move on.
Meet another person.
Say hello. Mention how the world is run by lizard people.
Hear them say 'yeah, derr, of course'.
Then ask them their opinion on the way the government is forcing people to take vaccines.
Move on.
Repeat.
